I Want Proof Jesus Even Existed

by Farkel 199 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  mP

  sab

  Ehrman did such a poor job of defending the historical Jesus that it really makes me wonder if there is a solid basis at all.

  Then why did he end the article with this conclusion:

  Whether we like it or not, Jesus certainly existed.

  -Sab

  mP-> Sab

  Bart has too much emptional attachment to his past history as a fundamentalist. He realises that rationally the gospels are more myth and most of the stories absolutely never happened and dont even have a hebrew background. Someone has to ask how good a scholar is he, if it took him 30+ years to realise that the gospels literred with mistakes, contradictions and are a fraud and Jesus at best is just a man. Commonsense tells us that the need for so much lies, fabrication and mistakes surely shows none of the text can be trusted. These are surely the evidence of a cabal and the work of man. God would never be that imperfect.

  Many people hear have done considerably less research but it didnt take them quite as much study to come to the same conclusion.
• 

  mP

  Still:

  Ehrman did such a poor job of defending the historical Jesus that it really makes me wonder if there is a solid basis at all....slimboyfat

  Cool, you've read it.

  What evidence did he use to prove that there was a historical Jesus? Was there something other than the bible?

  I don't really give a damn if there was a real person or not, makes no difference to what I don't believe. But I am curious to know if they at least based some of the bible on a real living person who claimed to be the messiah, or if it was completely made up.

  mP:

  If you read his book you will find he spends an extraordinary amount of time repeating himself with the same statements . He is constantly appealing to authority that other scholars accept someone called jesus existed. I felt it dishonest to repeat jesus existed but then to skim or skip over who Jesus was together with these statements.

  He also fails to show in any detail the 4 glorious independent proofs. Simply reading the text from these proofs raises more q than it answers. Jesus was a popular name at the time. There were many Messiahs at the time. Messiah simply means chosen one, all movement leaders think they are special and selected. This is just a bad joke. Any rebel back then would have been a messiah in the eyes of his followers. The word Christ pretty much means the same, but in Greek. Obviously poor religious Jews who were racist with a passion and refused to eat let alone accept outsiders into their religion would most definitely not have used a Greek title for their Messiah.

  The other problem is of course that the 4 texts mention next to nothing about the Jesus, we are all told about. No Bethlehem, virgin Mary, Joseph, 12 disciples, Nazareth, ressurrection, none of his miracles, Lazarus and so on. In fact the texts could be about any rebel leader at the time. They all had followers, and many would have been executed for their treason and what we would call terrorism. If you thought the Taliban are vicious then you might want to meet their first century prototypes the Jewish rebel.
• 

  mP

  Sab

  However the Gospels ARE anti-semitic propaganda. It's pro-Roman and anti-Jew, that's because the Romans created "official Christianity" and attached it to their State.

  mP

  http://jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/237941/1/Did-Paul-Invent-Christianity

  Check my posts and you will find many disturbing concidences between the Flavians and xianity both in hte beginning, the writings themselves and even in the formation of the Bible by Constantine another Flavian.

  You might want to look at Caesars Messiah by Joseph Atwill. Hes also got a movie out under the same name, which explans everything and should more than satisfy the anyone who doubts the Romans invented Xianity.

  http://www.caesarsmessiahdoc.com
• 

  mP

  slimboy

  It was Paul that got Christianity off the ground though was it not?

  mP:

  Hvae you checked what Paul actually says about Jesus. Take notes of all his statements abotu Jesus, and you will find he is talking about a saviour but is this really the Jesus of the gospels. No nazareth, no 12 disciples, no judas, no mary, no virgin birth, no bethelehm, none of the miracles, no resurrection after 3 days etc. If you wanted to learn about jesus from Pauls writings, you would know nothing that matches modern xianity in any form. In fact your believes would be limited to basically one line.
• 

  mP

  trans

  Yeah... could be... it was written 86 years after Jesus supposedly died. But it's the earliest and strongest piece of evidence for Jesus' existence from outside the Bible.. Sad, really...

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

  mP:

  Ive pasted the text for everyones convenience.

  "Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind".

  Wiki is also wrong the original actually says "Chrestus" which ais a different word with a diff meaning.

  All we learn from the text is someone who claims to be special or anoited to lead, was executed. Hardly unique given Judea rebelled many times and had countless numbers of false messiahs. Nothing in tht text uniquely identifies our Jesus. Theres not a single unique point, no nazareth, behtlehem, 12 disciples, miracles nothing.
• 

  mP

  Sab said:

  Imo, you must give this "man" the proper credit of dramatically changing the religious landscape of the future (which includes US), whether he meant to or not.

  mP:

  Jesus did not change anything. He was a good Jew. He never said to stop obeying the Torah. He only preached to Jews, said numerous times that only they needed saving and so on. THe ony thing that changed was time and the people in power. Jesus story has been evolving for a long time. Ask any of the 30000 xian religions and they will all tell yoou different things. Go read the 100 other gospels not in the bible, and see that invention and creative writing has been in force since the beginning of time.
• 

  mP

  still:

  transhuman....so that was still written some time after Jesus death? Not during his life?

  Could it still be just referring to what christians had been teaching? Not first hand information?

  mP:

  What proof have you got of any xians existing ? If there were so many xians why did none of them write anything down ? Surely if there wre thousands of hundreds of thousands we wluld have records from the days of Jesus rather than waiting 40+ years for Mark and even longer for Mt, Lu and John.
• 

  mP

  Leo:

  What do you think about the Flavians inventing Jesus ?
• 

  mP

  torn:

  What about 'Antiquities of the Jews' by Josephus?

  Book 20 chapter 9 verse 1 and Book 18 chapter 3 verse 3. Both instances mention Jesus and calls him 'the Christ'.

  mP:
  have you ever read the text ?

  If you read the text you will realise that if both samples are not insertions, they hardly identify our jesus. NO nazareth, mary, bethlehem, 12 disciples, miracles, ressurrection. nothing. There were many messiahs and christ is a title they would have all claimed. They were all trying to rid Judea of the Romans and saviour is an appropriate title. You might want to check the history of rebellions in the first centiry in judea.
• 

  Leolaia

  A reeaaal stretch.